People should be able to own whatever gun they want, I should be able to own an Aussalt ariffle, shotgun, pistol, AK-47, AR-15, machine guns, tank guns, WW2 cannons, missile launcher, ghost guns, I should be able to own any firearm I can afford.

"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense," he said. "But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home." -Ronald Reagan.

Is ownership of any kind of gun an absolute right? Even an AK-47? Great men like Ronald Reagan even agreed that such weapons are of no need in our cities and communities.
I will be arguing the negative case for this resolution.

Value: National Security. National Security, as defined by the Value Debate Handbook, refers to the protection of a state from aggression. Aggression against the nation threatens our safety and security as much as does a crime, catastrophic illness, or natural disaster. Nation security is important because it preserves fundamental American values, such as safety. Those values, such as freedom guaranteed by the constitution, are jeopardized when national security is endangered. According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, safety is established as a basic human value. So when we use unneeded weapons that are originally designed for war, we are endangering our basic human value of safety and our national security all together.

Definitions: (as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary)
Aggression: Angry or violent behavior or feelings
Safety: Freedom from harm or danger
Threaten: To say that you will harm someone or do something unpleasant or unwanted especially in order to make someone do what you want

As a little road map for my speech, I will present three contentions that support my case.
Contention 1: Not needed.
Contention 2: Responsibility.
Contention 3: Safety.

Contention 1: Not needed. Assault rifles, missile launchers, and tanks are of no use or need in our communities. These weapons are meant for war and national protection, not for any man that can afford it. There is no use for guns like this in any place that isn't a war zone. You literally can't hunt with a missile launcher (imagine that). Ammo is expensive, so you have to be filthy rich in order to even operate these weapons. When our founding fathers put together The Bill of Rights and the second amendment, their intention was to have a "well regulated militia". Not a maxed out military superpower for every household to enjoy. Regulated, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something). We have to set the amount of guns that we are able to have ownership of. We don't need guns that aren't under our regulation.

Contention 2: Responsibility. Responsibility, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, is to be able to be trusted to do what is right or to do the things that are expected or required. In the past 20 years, our nation has shown to be very irresponsible when it comes to gun ownership. The U.S own 35-50% of the worlds guns. Because of our irresponsibility with half the worlds weapons, we have had over 51 mass shooting since 1997. The U.S is estimated at having 401 firearm homicides per 10,000 people. More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in this country. More than 30 people are shot and murdered each day. 1/2 of them are between the ages of 18 and 35. 1/3 of them are under the age of 20. But all together, there have been 540,000 firearm deaths in the U.S since 1997. We are the leading nation in firearm deaths and mass shootings. So, due to this statistics, you can see how irresponsible our nation is with guns. Just imagine how the death rates in our nation would rise if gun ownership wasn't regulated. There wouldn't be school shootings; there would be school bombings. If the United States can't be responsible enough to handle our guns today, what makes you think that we will still be trusted with weapons of war?

Contention 3: Safety. As I said in my Contention 2, our nation is not responsible enough to own weapons of war. This would ultimately result in the destruction of our safety. It is the purpose of our government to protect our basic human value of safety. So in order to not have a irresponsible nation handle weapons of war, the government has to regulate weapons to protect its citizens. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Maslow says that human's basic needs, which includes safety, must be satisfied before other higher needs such as freedom, self actualization, and progress can be met. Since safety is a basic human need, it is a prerequisite to other higher values. Therefore, unless we are safe and secure, we cannot enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So you shouldn't be angry with the government when they won't allow you to own a missile launcher. The government is protecting yours and others basic human value and need of safety.

I would like to thank you for your time and I strongly urge you to vote for the negative side of this debate.

First of all, if Ronald Reagan really said that you should be able to find a source for it, I can provide a source for a hard core liberal, John F Kennedy, arguing for gun rights:

“In my own native state of Massachusetts, the battle for American freedom was begun by the thousands of farmers and tradesmen who made up the Minute Men — citizens who were ready to defend their liberty at a moment’s notice. Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of America, cannot succeed with any lesser effort…

By calling attention to “a well-regulated militia,” the “security” of the nation, and the right of each citizen “to keep and bear arms,” our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

The point of the second amendment was that citizens could defend themselves and their nation from threats which may endanger their liberties, including their own government. This is why the second amendment obligates citizens to participate in a militia, and that the militias should be at least equal to the military, under this implication, if the military has an AR-15 I want an AR-15, if the military has an AK-47 I want an AK-47, if the government has fully automatic weapons, I want a fully automatic weapon.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Defense 1; needed:

Like I said, this “well regulated” militia needs to be equivalent to the government, if the US government has bazookas and missile launchers and machine guns militias need them also. Besides, by “well regulated,” the founding fathers meant a well-trained militia, as they have in Switzerland where every citizen is obligated to own a fully automatic weapon in their house, and to participate in a militia, and receive military training. You can see how this turned out, there are only 42 homicides annually in Switzerland, and they have the strongest rights and national sovereignty of any European Nation. They rejected the Euro Dollar, they rejected Syrian terrorists, and when populists tried to destroy their nation, they turned down such laws, such as one which would have established a 22$ minimum wage, by 78% of the popular vote. This is because the Swiss are what you call a “free people.”

Defense 2; Responsibility:

So you are arguing that the people are irresponsible, so they are dangerous and should not be granted the basic liberties of a free nation, such as the right to bear arms.

The reason why there are so many homicides in the US is not because of guns, people could kill people with knives, crossbows, and poison, the reason we have so many homicides probably has something to do with how miserable people are due to our 22% unemployment rate, the drug epidemic, violent video games, and poor education.

This argument of yours is merely advocating for fascism, which I have no interest in.

Defense 3; Safety:

“Any Society that will give up a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”– Benjamin Franklin.

Ronald Reagan did say that, I put my sources in the comments section after my debate. Go check them out if you like.

I agree with JFK, the founding fathers, and the second amendment. I love JFK. But JFK's and the founding father's generations both respected and were responsible for their guns. Today's generation obviously is not. When JFK and the Framers gave these many statements, they were saying it to their generations. Obviously, they couldn't have known how out of hand our gun responsibility would eventually become. I agree with JFK, but it is to my opinion that his speech does not apply to our nation at this moment in time. Americans are too irresponsible with their guns to defend their nation. Lets compare a gun to a phone. If you are responsible with your phone, then your parents will let you use it as you please. But if you are irresponsible with your phone, like looking at pornography or such, then your parents take it away to protect you from the harms of pornography. It is similar to guns. If we are responsible with are guns, then the government lets us enjoy the right as we please. But if we are irresponsible with guns by killing and taking away others basic human rights, then the government should regulate those guns to protect others basic human rights. The purpose of government is to protect it's citizens basic human rights, even when they are disrespecting their own rights.

Like the spider man quote "with great power comes great responsibility", the same applies to guns. If my opponent wants every gun that the military has, how can we trust him with that much power and responsibility? A civilian with that power has no checks and balances like a government, so what could stop a power like that from doing harm?

My opponent doesn't know what "well regulated" means. Like I said, regulated, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, is to make rules or laws that control something. My opponent doesn't know what the founding fathers meant by "well regulated", unless he has met and has known the founding fathers personally. They certainly didn't mean well trained because the definition of regulate has nothing to do with training.

I would like my opponent to know that Switzerland is actually ranked the second to third highest nation in gun violence. And they still have significantly less guns and people than the United States. I do not know where he is getting his facts from. But, since we are talking about other nation, I would like to mention that other nations with stricter gun laws have less mass shootings, gun related homicides, and gun violence all together. Such as Australia and England. England's laws regulated Machine guns, pepper spray, semi-automatic, and pump-action rifles, and any firearm that has a barrel less than 30 centimeters in length are prohibited. England has shown to have less gun violence. But they didn't take away all of their guns, they can still have shotguns, black powder weapons, manually-loaded cartridge pistols and manually-loaded center-fire rifles. So they can still have defense of their homes and enjoy sports. There is a great amount of difference between a mass shooting with a assault riffle and these weapons. Assault riffles and other dangerous guns, obviously cause more damage in a decreased amount of time. That is why they are so dangerous when used by the public. But the guns that England allows makes it difficult to preform mass killings. These same laws and other are used in many other countries as well. They have all shown to have less gun violence.

Let me add this in real quick. My opponent believes that freedom is of more value than safety. It is to my knowledge that he is wrong. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, safety comes before freedom. Therefore, like I said before, since safety is a basic human need, it is a prerequisite to other higher values. Therefore, unless we are safe and secure, we cannot enjoy freedom and liberty. Safety is therefore the superior value standard. I would like to ask my opponent to define his version of freedom for me also.

Well, yes, people could kill others with knives, crossbows, and poison. But all those weapons are of no equal value to weapons of war. If they were of equal value, as my opponent suggests, then we would have no need for the second amendment, or to own a gun. But obviously my opponent is wrong. Weapons of war are of much greater power than any other weapon. These weapons are used by conflicting nations to kill multiplier people at the same time. But when they are not used by conflicting nations, they can be used with the same consequences. Weapons of war are meant to kill multiple people, the person using it doesn't care if you are a solider, civilian, or anything.

Can I get some statistics or facts that show that gun related homicides (or any homicides) are caused by the reasons you mentioned? You can have nothing to do with the unemployment rate, the drug epidemic, violent video games, and poor education and still preform a mass shooting. Anyone can have terrorist intentions. Many mass shooters were educated, employed and thought to be just people. Just look at the Dallas shooter from recent attacks. Also, all other nations have the same problems as we do, some even worse. Like I said, countries like England have managed to avoid gun violence through problems like this through gun laws.

I am not advocating fascism. The photograph only includes men who were dictators. They were all leaders of communist nations. But last time I checked, the United States is not a dictatorship. We are a democracy. Our government is built in such a way that it can never take control of the people. Even when the people is without deadly weapons of war.

I like Benjamin Franklin, but I am confused with his statement. Isn't the idea of government to give up liberties for protection? This has been the purpose of government for thousands of years. For example, I give up my liberty to go 200 mph on the freeway to the government. The government makes laws that regulate the speed limit for my protection. So this makes no sense.

My opponent does not have a well structured case. Only statements and opinions. Therefore, my opponent can in no way successfully attack my case, for he has no organized case of his own to back him up.

No, you did not cite any sources, besides, even if you did, your source needs to provide a place and time where Reagan said that.

In response to your first argument, you assume that it is the government’s job to decide what rights the people should have, and that the government is somehow like the parent to the citizens. This is not so, the government is a servant of the citizens, not the master, the government does not grant us rights or regulate them, it merely enforces these rights, which are granted by a higher power- G-d. This is very obvious if you read the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that to preserve these rights governments were instituted among men.”

A police officer doesn’t get to decide what laws to enforce, he just enforces them, the government does not get to decide what liberties to secure; its job is only to secure them. I also found it interesting that people who were against and wrote against totalitarian regimes such as George Orwell and Thomas Jefferson were in favor of second amendment rights:

“That rifle on the wall of the laborer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” – George Orwell

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

This is because if the government decides to take away our rights and force us under totalitarianism, our last and greatest defense is the right to bear arms and to form militias. If the people are armed, the government will fear the people, and when the government fears the people there is liberty, but when the people fear the government there is tyranny. This is when the government is armed and the people are not.

It is not the government’s job to decide whether I am responsible or not, it is our job, the citizens, to decide if the government is responsible enough to govern. It is also none of your business to be concerned whether or not I can be trusted with an AK-47, if I went to shoot a crowd of people who were armed, I would certainly die, and not too many rational people would do this.

“The government does not need to know about what we are doing. We need to know about what the government is doing. We need to turn the cameras on the police and on the government, not the other way around." - Ron Paul

An “assault” Riffle is just a riffle, if I kick you with my boot, does that make that boot an “assault boot?” I also want to point out that your statistic for Switzerland having such high gun violence is thoroughly absurd. First of all you provided no source, second of all these numbers are impossible because Switzerland only has 52 homicides annually; assuming that all of these are gun related your numbers are still mathematically impossible. {1} granted they only have a population of about 8.2 million, but this means that they have 1 homicide annually per every 157,700 people, whereas we have 1 homicide annually for every 25,600 people, and Brittan has 1 homicide per every 96,970 people. So the US has a homicide rate of 6 times Switzerland, and Brittan has a homicide rate of 1.5 times Switzerland.

Third of all, I am measuring violence in regards to how many homicides in general they have, I couldn’t really care less if the criminals kill people more with guns than with knives, it just needs to stop. And a good way to do this is to arm our citizens.

Comparing gun ownership to homicide rates is a little tricky since each country may otherwise have different homicide rates. So you can only tell by comparing high gun ownership and homicide rates in the same nation, since 1993 gun ownership has rose, and crime has reduced. {2}

I couldn’t care less what Maslow says, but even if I did this was a psychological theory; it has nothing to do with human rights. Like I said, those who would give a little liberty to receive a little security will deserve neither and lose both. The most important need is independence and individualism, and the definition of liberty is the right to do anything which does not infringe someone else’s rights, which in their most basic form are life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.

The government is not supposed to take away freedom for protection, this is absurd, the government is there to preserve our liberties, which means that it is supposed to have no involvement whatsoever save a military to defend against foreign threats and a police to defend against domestic threats.

“If you want to be perfectly safe from child abuse and wife beating, the government could put a camera in every one of our houses and our bedrooms, and maybe there would be somebody made safer this way, but what would you be giving up? Perfect safety is not the purpose of government. What we want from government is to enforce the law to protect our liberties." - Ron Paul

Your argument that reducing guns reduces crime is insane, crime does not require guns, I could commit a crime with or without a gun. But let's create a hypothetical scenario, a criminal named Frank wants to rob a bank, if he lives in Washington DC, he knows that he can jut buy a semi-automatic from his criminal friend Joe who doesn't really care that guns are illegal, and shoot everyone in the bank, the police take 30 minutes to get there, and when they do, Frank and Joe are already in Mexico enjoying their new stolen wealth.

In an alternative scenario, Frank lives in Texas, walks into a bank and pulls out his AK-47, so the bank teller pulls out a shotgun and blows his brains out- no one gets robbed and no one dies save Frank. Which bank would you rather be in?

First of all, I would like to state that my opponent is completely ignorant in looking at my sources. I have shown a plethora of sources, yet my opponent somehow believes that I haven't put down any at all. So, seeing that my opponent is completly lazy when it comes to simply clicking and reading sources, I will present them all again.

Let it be known to the voters that I had these sources posted for each of my debates (the first round was in the comments section to save room for my debate.) I am just posting them here again so that my opponent can have a second chance at looking at these. Hopefully, he will give up his ignorance and actually read some of these sources.

I am a firm believer in God. I agree with my opponent that the government does not control our rights, but protects them. If everyone is allowed weapons of war in the United States, all of our basic human rights will be at risk. Simple arguments will turn into war zones. Like I said, there wouldn't be school shootings, there would be school bombings. Governments are instituted among men to preserve these rights. That's why they create laws to protect us. We give away liberates to obey these laws. There are seat belt laws, so I have to give up my freedom to choose to not wear a seat belt. There are tax laws, so I give up my freedom weather I want to pay taxes or not. These are all for our protection and good.

Let me add this: I think that my opponent is misunderstanding my case. I do not want to take away all of our guns. Only dangerous weapons of war. If we had gun laws like England, we would still be able to protect ourselves from intruders and the government. We just wouldn't be able to get a missile launcher to bomb a school. By having weapons of war, we are endangering ourselves rather than protection of ourselves. Look at all of the mass shootings we are having in America today. If those shootings involved greater weapons, hundreds of more people would die. If this much power was given to the people, it would eventually lead to anarchy. There has to be a balance between the people and the government. If the people are too powerful for their government then there is no need for government.

It doesn't matter if you shoot out into a crowd of people whom are armed. Just look at the Orlando Florida shooting. There were guards, with guns, inside that night club and tons of people still died.

IT IS my business to be concerned if you can be trusted with weapons of war. How am I suppose to feel safe if I never know when you are going to come to bomb my house. If anyone disagreed with you, you could just enforce your own power to get what you want. You could become a vigilante that no government could stop. What if some day you just become mentally unstable? This is why it is my concern to know if you can be trusted with weapons of war. A single person with that much power must be very responsible to be trusted.

Your source does not define well regulated. It is just opinions, no facts. It even states that it is just opinions. Read the definition of regulate again. It is to make rules or laws that control (something). Do you think that there should be rules and laws for average militias so that those militias don't become too powerful? More powerful than the government? If there were no rules, any militia could overthrow the government at any time. Even when the government has good intentions, bad people could still overthrow the government. Communists, terrorists, and gangs could take over the government.

The definition of assault rifles and a regular bolt action or mussel loader rifles is completely different. A assault rifle isn't any ordinary weapon, it is a weapon designed for war. Assault rifle (as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary): a gun that can shoot many bullets quickly and that is designed for use by the military. Bolt action: (of a rifle) equipped with a manually operated sliding bolt. Rifle (as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary): a gun that has a long barrel and that is held against your shoulder when you shoot it. As you can see, a assault rifle is meant to shoot many bullets in a short amount of time. It is actually designed for war and for killing. In short, it is meant for a great deal of damage in a short amount of time. Assault rifles are faster, deadlier, and more dangerous than regular weapons. Also, this has nothing to do with boots.

We are talking about gun related violence, homicides, and mass shootings. Not homicides in general. Therefore, this claim you have about Switzerland is no longer valid. The majority of the homicides in Switzerland and the United States are preformed with dangerous weapons. You can clearly see that in my sources.

How has homicide rates fallen because of gun ownership? The source that says this is majorly flawed. It's obvious in history. Go ask any person past the age of 40 and ask them how many mass shootings happened in their youth. They will most certainly say none. But since 1997, there has been over 51 mass shootings in the United States. So obviously gun violence and homicides have become more frequent in the past couple of years. Therefore, my opponent's source is flawed in saying that gun ownership has lowered homicide rates in the United States.

Sure, you can disagree with Maslow. But he is just simply stating the facts of the most important needs in our lives. Me and my opponent have the same basic human needs as all of you. Some of those needs are needed before others, such as safety. I will repeat this again, safety is a basic human need, it is a prerequisite to other higher values. Therefore, unless we are safe and secure, we cannot enjoy freedom and liberty. Safety is therefore the superior value standard. You have to have safety before you can have independence from anything.

Like I have said many times before, we give up freedoms for protection everyday. By obeying laws, we give up our freedom and the laws protect us in return. That is the whole idea of government. Here is a source explaining Franklin's quote that you mentioned. Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade. Read about it.

OK... if crime does not require guns... then I could go rob a bank right now really easily right? Well, obviously wrong. Dangerous weapons are used to threaten people into obeying demands that are against ones will. So you can preform a plethora of crimes with guns. Your hypothetical scenario doesn't support your statement either. Banks can still have shotguns for protection or armed guards (as most banks do have).

My opponent has done nothing to affect my case. He still does not have a well structured case of his own. Therefore, my case still stands strong.

No, those sources were not there in round 2, you came up with them now, go see round 2. Also, even if you could prove that Ronald Reagan said that, it is irrelevant, just because Reagan thought something doesn’t mean that I have to, or that he is necessarily right. It’s like if I provided a quote from Mussolini saying that people should be able to own any gun they want, you don’t have to believe it just because you are a fascist and he is a role model of your beliefs, any more than I have to believe what Reagan believed because I am a libertarian-conservative.

Your analogy of seat belts does not apply here, this would be like passing a law saying that you can’t run around waiving a gun unsafely, but what you seem to be advocating for is banning large trucks because terrorists could use them to run over 80 people. There is a big difference between cars and guns though, such as how the right to bear arms is protected under the constitution but the right to bear cars is not, also the right to bear arms preserves our liberties, whereas cars only get you from A to B faster.

Think about it, say some maniac wants to blow up a school, how the hell is he going to afford a bazooka? Only militias would be able to afford those. Now let’s assume that he does get a bazooka, then walks into a school where the teachers or receptionists own guns, he pulls out his bazooka, and gets his head blown off.

There were no guards with guns in Orlando; I don’t know where you dug that up.

No, it really isn’t your concern what guns I own, just build a wall and get yourself guns to defend yourself, No one is going to attack you with a bazooka if they know that you have one too. And if I go on a reign of terror, do you honestly think that the militias will let that happen? No, I don’t think so. And besides, I could say that you don’t need a car because you could go crazy and run over 100 people, you could crash into people’s houses and kill them all then drive away before anyone can stop you. We don’t ban cars do we?

Obesity kills far more people than gun violence, in fact 18% of all deaths in the US are caused by obesity, but we don’t try and “regulate” how many big macs people eat do we?

The thing that would prevent militias from getting too powerful is separation, if there are 3 major militias, combined they may be able to take down the government with civilian help, but alone they are too week.

I think this has a great deal to do with boots, if I kicked you with my boot, does that make my boot an “assault boot?” You seem to be avoiding this question, you also seem to be misunderstanding the second amendment, the point is not only to be able to defend your liberties from intruders, it is also to be able to defend your liberties from your own government, which clearly sets a need for military grade weapons of war.

And no, we are not talking about gun violence only, crime in general reduces when gun ownership increases, whereas gun killings alone increase. But this isn’t much of a plus, less shootings but more of them are of guns or more killings but at least that guy got killed by a knife not a gun! You seem to be trying to sound absurd, would you rather have 7 deaths where 2 of the victims were killed by guns or only 4 killings where 3 of them are by guns?

Most schools shooters were spoiled brats by the way, which were a lot harder to come by in 1955, so there were not too many school shootings.

You also seem to be skipping over how the point of the second amendment was that the Federal Government became tyrannous we could over throw it, you also seem to be skipping over how the founding fathers established the second amendment “that every man should own a gun.”

Wow... simply just.. wow.
I'll make this easy for you. First, go to round two of my debate. Next, scroll down to the bottom where it says "Sources:". Guess what? My sources for my round 2 are there. Who knew?

I would like to advise the voters to not pay attention to my opponents ignorant claims about my sources. You can perfectly find my sources in my debates and in the comments section also. Do not let my opponent fool you into thinking that I am a idiot.

I did prove that Ronald Reagan said that. Why are you being so dang ignorant? I've put the source of him saying that in TWO of my debate rounds. Yet somehow you have missed it every time. Is there something wrong with your computer or something? Because I just can't figure out why you keep on accusing me of not presenting sources. I guess the third try is the charm.
Here is the quote of Ronald Reagan that my opponent can't deny. Hopefully this is final time I have to post this: http://www.snopes.com......
If my opponent really believed what Reagan believed, he would believe this then. Therefore, he agrees with my debate.

Well if you don't agree with my quotes, it doesn't make them irrelevant. I disagree with most of your points, so I guess according to you tactics that makes them irrelevant also. Therefore, your case no longer stands at all.

My opponent seems to be desperate enough at this point in the debate to start calling me names. Don't worry, it's just sticks and stones. I AM NOT A FASCIST. Mussolini is not my role model. Stop accusing me of such things. That would be like if I said that you worshiped Hitler. Obviously, you don't. But do you know how annoying and disrespectful that is. If you could please handle the rest of this debate in a more professional manner, I would much appreciate it.

I'm sorry to be mean. Your ignorance for my debate is just driving me to anger.

My analogy does apply here. My opponent has made a poor attempt to prove that it doesn't apply. There are laws the prohibit vehicles in public places. But since driving is a privilege, if someone deliberately tries to run over people, that person will get his licence and vehicle taken away and will never drive again.

"Say some maniac wants to blow up a school, how the hell is he going to afford a bazooka?"
"People should be able to own whatever gun they want, I should be able to own an Aussalt ariffle, shotgun, pistol, AK-47, AR-15, machine guns, tank guns, WW2 cannons, missile launcher, ghost guns, I should be able to own any firearm I can afford."
First of all, watch your language. You don't need to swear to prove your point.
Any maniac that is committed enough to get a missile launcher will receive it in a matter of time. Like you said, people, even maniacs, should be able to own whatever gun they want. We do not want a maniac to get a missile launcher. That's why we need to have stricter gun laws so that people like that can't get missile launchers.

Your bazooka maniac assumption does not work. Simply, that's not how our schools and world works. The bazooka guy didn't call ahead to the school to tell them he was coming to blow it up. The teachers and the staff wouldn't be huddled up in the corner and be like "ok let's shoot the next guy that comes in". That's just not how it works. That's not how terrorism or schools work. Your assumption is completely flawed and can't stand as a valid point in this debate.

I can't take away the liberties of my family just so you can have a missile launcher. I'm not going to bunker up my future family and say "sorry kids, you can't go enjoy the pursuit of happiness because people threaten us with missile launchers." I don't want to live a life like that. I want to be free to do as I please without having people like you threaten me with dangerous weapons. That is not he United States that I have dreamed of. Where everyone is afraid of each others weapons. If that is a America that you want to live in then what is wrong with you?

The "militias" would let that happen for 2 reasons.
1. Militias wouldn't know your intentions before it was too late. Not unless they are watching you at all times or they have guards stationed on every corner, like Nazi Germany. Anyways, it's like you said. It's none of their concern.
2. Militias can't assemble that fast to stop you. You could have caused enough damage to leave a scar on the world before they even knew what was happening.

Your example with the car is highly exaggerated and kind of imaginary. This debate isn't a Call of Duty game. I have never heard of that happening either. So that's why we don't ban cars. Because the danger of that situation seems highly exaggerated and could never happen in real life.

Well, actually, the government has begun to do something about the obesity epidemic. Michelle Obama has started the Let's Move program and has made school lunches healthier for the younger generation. But the older generation gets angry when the government tells them to eat healthier. But anyways, this is not the debate topic. I shall now return to the debate.

Do you have facts on how separation would prevent militias from getting too powerful. This sounds more like an exaggerated guess.

I'm not avoiding the question. It is just a really dumb question. But if you really want me to answer it, then I will. No, if you kicked me with a boot, that would not make it an assault boot. I'm not sure where you are getting at with the question though. But that has nothing to do with how a assault rifle is just a rifle. I have proven that it is not just a ordinary rifle. Assault rifles can cause a great deal of damage in a short amount of time. No other regular weapons can do that. So I'm not sure where you are getting with this boot question.

So when there are more guns, there is a increase in gun killings huh? Weird, that seems to prove my point that an increase of dangerous weapons in the United States has lead to gun violence, homicides, and mass shootings. I don't get your question either. I know that you will be mad if I don't answer it so I guess I will go ahead. Umm 4 killings where 3 of them are by guns I guess. 4 killings is a lot less than 7 killings so that's why I think it is better.

So most school shooters are brats? Well, since you have the burden of proof, can you give me at least 5 examples of school shooters that were brats? Or give some statistics or facts?

"the point of the second amendment was that the Federal Government became tyrannous we could over throw it"
That is simply not he point of the second amendment at all. It's like you said, it is meant for protection. Along with this, I also believe that every man should own a gun. But every man shouldn't be able to own a weapon of war. We should be able to protect ourselves with guns, but not with certain assault rifles. Assault rifles are more often used for oppression than protection.

My case still stands strong. My opponent has made no effort to structure his own debate, therefore he cannot successfully attack my debate. I would like to thank you for your time and I strongly urge you to vote for the negative case of this debate.

Firstly, you didn’t post sources until round 2; you were too late to post sources for round 1. Second of that entire source you provided sent me to a random page, nowhere did I find that quote from Reagan. Third of all, your source needs to provide a source, where and when he and it an under what context, also what records show this. Fourth of all, even if you could prove it, it is irrelevant; this debate is about whether or not guns should be regulated, not whether or not Ronald Reagan thought they should be regulated.

I said you were a fascist because your rhetoric is fascism, you believe that the government gets to decide if we are responsible enough for liberty, you believe that citizens should not be able to defend their property and liberties from their government, and you believe that we should submit our liberties for the good of the state as a whole, this is called fascism. If I confess ideologies and beliefs that bear a striking resemblance to that of Adolf Hitler, you may have a legitimate case to believe me a Nazi, but I do not, instead you confess beliefs which resemble almost exactly those of Mussolini.

Now- if someone ran over a bunch of people, he would get arrested for murder, manslaughter, or at the very least criminal negligence, so taking away his license would make no sense seeing as though he isn’t driving anytime soon anyway. Also, if you will take note, I said I should be able to own any gun that I can afford, so there is no contradiction. Also if some maniac wants to buy a missile launcher, the gun salesman probably won’t sell one to him, and that’s fine, it’s his guns and his business, he can do what he wants.

Also, teachers don’t need to know he is coming, all they need to know is “hey, they guy came out of his car with a bazooka, let me get out my gun,” either way if a guy comes into a school and aims a missile launcher they should know “oh, it’s a school bomber, shoot him.”

Either way, your claim that there were “armed guards” is absurd; according to your source there was 1 retired police officer, who probably isn’t going to be the best shot. And your source is most likely flawed seeing as though the bar was a gun-free-zone.

If you decide to lock your family in a bunker that is your choice; me practicing my liberties does not somehow automatically mandate you to lock yourself in a box, if you feel that it isn’t safe living in a free society, go move to prison and maybe there you can be happy where the people are unarmed and you are protected by nice, friendly, armed government officers. Maybe I should be able to live in peace free of liberals trying to confiscate my freedom.

The militias would have already existed, no need to assemble, and if I try to blow up someone’s house they would know that their liberties are in danger and they would fight me.

My analogy of people driving into houses with cars is not exaggerated; in fact it has actually happened on multiple occasions. {1} {2} There are a lot more but I think I’ve made my point, you can cause a lot of destruction with a car, in fact our most recent terrorist attack was done with a car, killing more people actually than shootings.

It is also not an exaggerated guess to say that if the militias are separated they won’t be as big of a threat, it’s mathematically true. 3 militia= about equal to government, 1 militia= 1/3rd government, therefor unable to defeat government.

I never said that increased gun ownership leads to more homicides, just that more of what homicides do happen are by gun. This is exactly my point, with more gun ownership homicides overall reduce, but what homicides do happen are more likely to be gun related, this is why liberal idiots only focus on homicides by gun, rather than the real numbers which show that gun ownership reduces crime. So would you rather live in Switzerland with 52 homicides overall and 52 homicides by gun, or Brittan with 658 homicides annually but 0 of them are gun related? I would rather have less homicides I don’t really care what criminals kill people with.

And yes, all of the school shooters seem to be spoiled brats {3}

Also, this is the point of the second amendment, a point anyway, you can tell because the founding fathers who wrote the second amendment said so.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and diciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to mantain a status of independence from anyone who might attempt to abbuse them, includng their own government." - George Washington

"When goveronment takes the citizens right to bear arms, the citizens must take away the goveronments right to govern." - George Washington

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government." - James Madison

I'm sorry for my arrogance in the last round. I was having a bad night. This led me to treat my opponent like an idiot. I am truly sorry for that. I treated you like a dumb child and that is not right. My opponent is brilliant, and I hope he can forgive me for my arrogance.

To be honest, I forgot to put my sources in the initial debate. I clicked the submit button then realized that I forgot to put down my sources. That is why I put it in the comments sections. I am sorry for the confusion.

I guess I copied and pasted the link to much. That's why I didn't go to it. I'll post it again, and I promise it will work this time. This Ronald Reagan quote is relevant because it helps me with my debate. The debate on if he really said that is irrelevant.

If you don't mind, I would like to post it in it's entirety.
"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense," he said. "But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home." -Ronald Reagan.http://www.snopes.com... Here is the full source. Sorry that the last one didn't work. But I promise you that this one should work.

Here is a letter sent to congress that Ronald Reagan signed.

May 3, 1994

To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:
We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

Please stop calling me a fascist. You have never met me before; how can you judge one so harshly for advocating for gun laws. It's really disrespectful.

I know that if someone ran over a bunch of people they would get arrested. I was just saying that getting your licence taken away and vehicle was the consequence. I thought jail would be obvious. The part that I really meant to be contradicted was "People should be able to own whatever gun they want". It can be very dangerous if any man can own whatever gun they want. Remember, there is still bad people out there, with our without weapons of war. Also a gun salesman is not a secure enough defense against a maniac getting a missile launcher. Look at the Orlando shooting. The gunman was investigated by the FBI twice and he was still sold an assault rifle.

Teachers would be doing their jobs, which is teaching. Not surveying the area outside their windows 24/7. If they did that, i'm pretty sure their wouldn't be school shootings. Mass shootings usually take people by surprise.

Retired or not, he did try to protect the citizens in the club. But yet, anyone in that situation (well except maybe Jason Bourne) probably would've been overpowered.

Well, choosing to lock up my family should be my choice. But when you pose a threat to my family, then that choice becomes a absolute necessity to protect my family. Therefore, I get my freedom of choice, my pursuit of happiness, and many other liberties just so that you can own and threaten me with a rocket launcher. That doesn't sound like a free society to me. You could have the ability to take the law into your own hands, leaving the need for government no where to be found. The balance between the people and the government wouldn't exist. So in reality, we are not trying to confiscate your freedom, you are trying to confiscate mine.

So having the militias already in assembly would give the people too much power. There would be no need for laws or the police force, because the militias would make their own law. Like Nazi Germany, there would be guards stationed on every corner. That doesn't sound like a free society. There would be no liberation, because we gave up that extra sense of security to the militias. Therefore, extra precautions would have to be made in the possible moment that someone would decide to blow up someones house. So this is my opponents secure tactic to make sure that people don't come and blow up my house and that the militias would stop him from doing that. This doesn't sound like a very happy tomorrow to me.

My opponents sources are invalid. No one was killed by a hit and run driver crashing through their home. Only a elderly couple was killed... by a fire that happened after the crash. So that's why people driving into houses is exaggerated. I know about France, it was such a tragedy. I was just saying that you were exaggerating it a bit by driving into peoples houses.

It would have been nice if my opponent had a source on the militia thingy. But that is exactly how Vladimir Lennon and Joseph Stalin took over Russia. They got funding from Germany to start a revolution, they got some people together and some weapons, and took over the government of Russia. That shouldn't happen that easily. But if we allowed to much power to the people, then militias could take over the government like Lennon Stalin did. This would be good in a time of tyranny. But extremely bad for today's government.

Yes, living in Switzerland would be nice. But it's homicide rate is less than the UK's because of population and population density. Switzerland has a lower population and population density than England. But if you were to put Switzerland homicide rate in England's shoes, they would be roughly the same. Hmm... well I guess this doesn't solve anything for both sides of this debate. I guess I proved that more guns and more restricted guns creates the same amount of homicides. Switzerland does have more guns per capita than the UK. Maybe different parts of the world is just more violent than others. I don't know.

This is one source of one school shooter being a brat. I asked for five. So I guess my opponent can't prove this point.

Yes, the point of the second amendment is to protect us from tyranny. The point of the second amendment is not to let us become more powerful than the government to the point that there is no longer a need for government. There needs to be a balance between the people and the government. I'm not saying that the government is better than the people or visa versa. But that the government needs to be equal to the people.

I would like to remind the voters that my opponent has not at all destroyed my case at all. For his case is not a case at all. He has no structure. My opponent has also rebuttaled every round, not bringing up any stand alone points of his own. All of his points are in contradiction to my, therefore my opponent relies on my debate to make his unstructured case. Therefore, without my case, my opponent wouldn't have a case at all. Ultimatly, I am the only one in this debate with a valid structured case.

I shall now review my case.

Value: National Security. National Security, as defined by the Value Debate Handbook, refers to the protection of a state from aggression. National security is important because it preserves fundamental American values, such as safety. So when we use unneeded weapons that are originally designed for war, we are endangering our basic human value of safety and our national security all together.

Contention 1: Not needed. Assault rifles, missile launchers, and tanks are of no use or need in our communities. There is no use for guns like this in any place that isn't a war zone. You literally can't hunt with a missile launcher (imagine that). Ammo is expensive, so you have to be filthy rich in order to even operate these weapons.

Contention 2: Responsibility. Responsibility, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, is to be able to be trusted to do what is right or to do the things that are expected or required. In the past 20 years, our nation has shown to be very irresponsible when it comes to gun ownership.

Contention 3: Safety. As I said in my Contention 2, our nation is not responsible enough to own weapons of war. This would ultimately result in the destruction of our safety. The government is protecting yours and others basic human value and need of safety.

I am a strong supporter of the second amendment to the extent that it allows us to preserve rights. Weapons of war can give great power to anyone, especially to those that would misuse it. There needs to be laws and restrictions so that people with bad intentions cannot even begin to taste this power. That is why it is to my knowledge that certain gun ownership should be regulated.

I would like to thank you for your time. I would also like to thank my opponent for this great debate. I strongly urge you to vote for the negative side of this debate. Thank you.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly explains each point calculation, and though the source point allocation is somewhat cut off, it's still sufficiently explained.
************************************************************************

Conduct: Pro repeatedly called Con a fascist in a demeaning way and spent much of his time arguing about clear to see sources, detracting from the overall issue. Con got a little impatient too but was quick to apologize. Conduct to Con.

S&G: Both had minor S&G errors but nothing impeded clarity. Tied.

Arguments: As Con repeatedly pointed out, Pro's arguments really lacked structure. He spent the majority of his time disputing Con's sources/points when the BOP lied on him to show why everyone should be able to purchase "tank guns, WW2 cannons, missile launcher..." His few points relied on his subjective interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, 200+ year old quotes that are hardly relevant to bazookas, and overall weak logic i.e. "gun sellers won't sell to sketchy people", "teachers will immediately stop a bazooka-wielding shooter". His proposal about a 3-branch militia to prevent too much power sounds eerily similar to, I don't know, maybe our 3 branch government that's been checking power and preventing tyranny for centuries. He also argues most people wouldn't be able to afford weapons of war anyways so how would the masses fend off the military then? Con's arguments had structure and he effectively showed how this free for all war state would considerably endanger peoples' safety and rights. This was his basic point and it stood strong throughout. It's sad that he had to spend much of his time re-posting sources and defending himself from fascism accusations.

Sources: Point goes to Con because of Pro's use of a biased source used to define "well-regulated". Con defined this phrase using Merriam-Webster, the nearly 200 year old, universally accepted, unbiased dictionary company, whereas Pro used a subjective definition determined by the American Militia Association, whose mission is "is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America by training and arming the people of this nation." This motive makes the definition and source unfairly b

[*Reason for removal*] While the arguments and conduct points are explained sufficiently, sources are not. The voter is required to do more than just state their doubts regarding some sources provided by one side while lauding the sources provided by the other. It should be clear why the voter finds sources like Alex Jones biased and untrustworthy, whereas they find Wikipedia credible and relevant.
************************************************************************

Conduct: Pro repeatedly called Con a fascist in a demeaning way and spent much of his time arguing about clear to see sources, detracting from the overall issue. Con got a little impatient too but was quick to apologize. Conduct to Con.

S&G: Both had minor S&G errors but nothing impeded clarity. Tied.

Arguments: As Con repeatedly pointed out, Pro's arguments really lacked structure. He spent the majority of his time disputing Con's sources/points when the BOP lied on him to show why everyone should be able to purchase "tank guns, WW2 cannons, missile launcher..." His few points relied on his subjective interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, 200+ year old quotes that are hardly relevant to bazookas, and overall weak logic i.e. "gun sellers won't sell to sketchy people", "teachers will immediately stop a bazooka-wielding shooter". His proposal about a 3-branch militia to prevent too much power sounds eerily similar to, oh I don't know, maybe our 3 branch government that's been checking power and preventing tyranny for centuries. He also argues most people wouldn't be able to afford weapons of war anyways so how would the masses fend off the military then? Con's arguments had structure and he effectively showed how this "free for all" war state would considerably endanger peoples' safety and rights. This was his basic point and it stood strong throughout. It's sad that he had to spend much of his time re-posting sources and defending himself from accusations of fascism.

Sources: Pro's sources from Alex Jones' website and the American Militia Association might be a tad biased. Con's sources were credible and unbiased (wiki, Merriam-Webster). His use of Maslow's Heirachy of Needs was an interesting and effective choice too.

Unless we only have ONE RIGHT it can't be absolute. What about when right X comes in conflict with right Y. You say Gun ownership trumps everything. you must be kidding. Gun ownership has the highest rights but that is not in conflict with regulation. I have the right to drive but there are red lights and stop signs.

How about saying that this constitutional right should only be modified constitutionally. That I accept whole-heartedly. Mrs Clintton's view is crap.